A randomized trial comparing the Ambu® Aura-i™ with the air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children

Narasimhan Jagannathan*, Lisa Sohn, Amod Sawardekar, Jason Gordon, Ravi Dipak Shah, Isabella Mukherji, Andrew G. Roth, Santhanam Suresh

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To assess the clinical performance of the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i) in children. Aim To compare the Aura-i with the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. Background The Aura-i is a new supraglottic airway designed for tracheal intubation. Materials/Methods One hundred twenty children, ages 1 month to 6 years, were randomized to receive either the Aura-i or air-Q, and divided into three equal subgroups (Group 1, 2, 3) based on weight. The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed. Results Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients. There were no differences in the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Aura-i (32.9 ± 13.3 s), and the air-Q (33.9 ± 13 s; P = 0.68), or fiberoptic grade of view between devices. There was not a statistically significant correlation between the time to intubation and the fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view in any of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall leak pressures, air-Q (18.3 ± 6.1 cm H2O) vs Aura-i (16 ± 5.1 cm H2O; P = 0.05). In Group 1 (5-10 kg), leak pressures were higher with the air-Q (23.4 ± 7.2 cm H2O) than the Aura-i (16.1 ± 5.2 cm H2O; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the time for removal between the two devices (P = 0.11). However, with the size 1.5 Aura-i, the pilot balloon of the tracheal tube was removed in order to facilitate the removal of the device after tracheal intubation. Conclusions Both devices served as effective conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The limitation of the narrower proximal airway tube of the size 1.5 Aura-i should be considered if cuffed tracheal tubes are to be utilized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1197-1204
Number of pages8
JournalPaediatric Anaesthesia
Volume22
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Intubation
Epilepsy
Air
Equipment and Supplies
Device Removal
Air Pressure
Pressure
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • air-Q
  • airway devices
  • clinical trials
  • laryngeal mask airway

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{233733b876a3462db08995d0182cd011,
title = "A randomized trial comparing the Ambu{\circledR} Aura-i™ with the air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children",
abstract = "Objectives To assess the clinical performance of the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i) in children. Aim To compare the Aura-i with the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. Background The Aura-i is a new supraglottic airway designed for tracheal intubation. Materials/Methods One hundred twenty children, ages 1 month to 6 years, were randomized to receive either the Aura-i or air-Q, and divided into three equal subgroups (Group 1, 2, 3) based on weight. The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed. Results Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients. There were no differences in the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Aura-i (32.9 ± 13.3 s), and the air-Q (33.9 ± 13 s; P = 0.68), or fiberoptic grade of view between devices. There was not a statistically significant correlation between the time to intubation and the fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view in any of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall leak pressures, air-Q (18.3 ± 6.1 cm H2O) vs Aura-i (16 ± 5.1 cm H2O; P = 0.05). In Group 1 (5-10 kg), leak pressures were higher with the air-Q (23.4 ± 7.2 cm H2O) than the Aura-i (16.1 ± 5.2 cm H2O; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the time for removal between the two devices (P = 0.11). However, with the size 1.5 Aura-i, the pilot balloon of the tracheal tube was removed in order to facilitate the removal of the device after tracheal intubation. Conclusions Both devices served as effective conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The limitation of the narrower proximal airway tube of the size 1.5 Aura-i should be considered if cuffed tracheal tubes are to be utilized.",
keywords = "air-Q, airway devices, clinical trials, laryngeal mask airway",
author = "Narasimhan Jagannathan and Lisa Sohn and Amod Sawardekar and Jason Gordon and Shah, {Ravi Dipak} and Isabella Mukherji and Roth, {Andrew G.} and Santhanam Suresh",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/pan.12024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "1197--1204",
journal = "Paediatric Anaesthesia",
issn = "1155-5645",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized trial comparing the Ambu® Aura-i™ with the air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children

AU - Jagannathan, Narasimhan

AU - Sohn, Lisa

AU - Sawardekar, Amod

AU - Gordon, Jason

AU - Shah, Ravi Dipak

AU - Mukherji, Isabella

AU - Roth, Andrew G.

AU - Suresh, Santhanam

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Objectives To assess the clinical performance of the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i) in children. Aim To compare the Aura-i with the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. Background The Aura-i is a new supraglottic airway designed for tracheal intubation. Materials/Methods One hundred twenty children, ages 1 month to 6 years, were randomized to receive either the Aura-i or air-Q, and divided into three equal subgroups (Group 1, 2, 3) based on weight. The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed. Results Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients. There were no differences in the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Aura-i (32.9 ± 13.3 s), and the air-Q (33.9 ± 13 s; P = 0.68), or fiberoptic grade of view between devices. There was not a statistically significant correlation between the time to intubation and the fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view in any of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall leak pressures, air-Q (18.3 ± 6.1 cm H2O) vs Aura-i (16 ± 5.1 cm H2O; P = 0.05). In Group 1 (5-10 kg), leak pressures were higher with the air-Q (23.4 ± 7.2 cm H2O) than the Aura-i (16.1 ± 5.2 cm H2O; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the time for removal between the two devices (P = 0.11). However, with the size 1.5 Aura-i, the pilot balloon of the tracheal tube was removed in order to facilitate the removal of the device after tracheal intubation. Conclusions Both devices served as effective conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The limitation of the narrower proximal airway tube of the size 1.5 Aura-i should be considered if cuffed tracheal tubes are to be utilized.

AB - Objectives To assess the clinical performance of the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i) in children. Aim To compare the Aura-i with the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. Background The Aura-i is a new supraglottic airway designed for tracheal intubation. Materials/Methods One hundred twenty children, ages 1 month to 6 years, were randomized to receive either the Aura-i or air-Q, and divided into three equal subgroups (Group 1, 2, 3) based on weight. The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed. Results Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients. There were no differences in the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Aura-i (32.9 ± 13.3 s), and the air-Q (33.9 ± 13 s; P = 0.68), or fiberoptic grade of view between devices. There was not a statistically significant correlation between the time to intubation and the fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view in any of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall leak pressures, air-Q (18.3 ± 6.1 cm H2O) vs Aura-i (16 ± 5.1 cm H2O; P = 0.05). In Group 1 (5-10 kg), leak pressures were higher with the air-Q (23.4 ± 7.2 cm H2O) than the Aura-i (16.1 ± 5.2 cm H2O; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the time for removal between the two devices (P = 0.11). However, with the size 1.5 Aura-i, the pilot balloon of the tracheal tube was removed in order to facilitate the removal of the device after tracheal intubation. Conclusions Both devices served as effective conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The limitation of the narrower proximal airway tube of the size 1.5 Aura-i should be considered if cuffed tracheal tubes are to be utilized.

KW - air-Q

KW - airway devices

KW - clinical trials

KW - laryngeal mask airway

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868648851&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84868648851&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/pan.12024

DO - 10.1111/pan.12024

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1197

EP - 1204

JO - Paediatric Anaesthesia

JF - Paediatric Anaesthesia

SN - 1155-5645

IS - 12

ER -